Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

Post and courier paper this am...front page of paper"Gamecocks rank last in study of bowl-bound-school graduation rates".

This article is written by 'staff report'...the person doesn't have the b*lls to even sign his/her name to it.

The article title is very mis-leading. This article is an example that some folks seem to want to wallow in the gutter instead of celebrating the accomplishments of this football team. If you read the article you will see they credit USC in several areas, but those parts don't warrant the 'big letters'.

Just ticked me off that the 'classless courier' would choose to go 'the garbage route' at this time of season and at this point in the football year.

No, you are looking at it all wrong... we are so low because we have so many players leave early for the pros and hold them to the same standard as other students to graduate. Whereas school with say an 80% let anyone graduate regardless of attendance, criminal activity...

I read somewhere that this data is wrong and players were left out ( http://www.gamecocksonline.com/genrel/102511aaa.html ). In any case it still looks like the #'s being used are from 2004 or 2005 since you have to look at the 6 year graduation rate. I think our GSR is around 55-57% (still not too good, but much better than 39%!).

Anyone remember that scene from the old movie necessary roughness with sinbad? He said (in a funny voice) "Hell son, we didn't bring you here to be a rocket scientist. Take some basket weaving an kick some ass." Or something similar. Anyone have a link to that because I can't find one and I think it fits this situation. On a comical level of course.

I read somewhere that this data is wrong and players were left out ( http://www.gamecocksonline.com/genrel/102511aaa.html ). In any case it still looks like the #'s being used are from 2004 or 2005 since you have to look at the 6 year graduation rate. I think our GSR is around 55-57% (still not too good, but much better than 39%!).

The numbers for one year in the 2001-2004 ranger were wrong. The article uses a more recent range. There's nothing biased or classless about that article and we certainly aren't sending that many people to the pros. It's not always a conspiracy against Carolina, we can't be awesome at everything.

Athletic director Eric Hyman said the updated figures would increase the football team's rate by about 16 to 18 percentage points. He said the football team had made tremendous academic progress under coach Steve Spurrier since 2005.

All we need to know in my opinion. Yeah, our GSR #'s aren't great (even at 55) but at least we're going in the right direction.

The link to that USA Today article was dated October 2011 -- so this correction to the report data has been available for over a year. Looks like someone was lazy at the Courier and didn't bother to do any research or even contact South Carolina. Either that or an agenda.

(Waits for that guy from California to come in and link to his thread about GPA)

I could list my own GPA and desire to walk on and play baseball at Carolina if that would help.

But seriously, you can't argue that the current academic numbers in the classroom are a far better representation of our current academic standing rather than a misleading stat about grad rates from the Lou Holtz era.

I could list my own GPA and desire to walk on and play baseball at Carolina if that would help.

But seriously, you can't argue that the current academic numbers in the classroom are a far better representation of our current academic standing rather than a misleading stat about grad rates from the Lou Holtz era.

Honestly I take all that academic stuff with a grain of salt.
We all know what happens.
The current staff is just on top of it more in getting them to show up to class etc.

People like to make fun of Spiller's achievements but its in sociology, a toddler can do what he did.

Cool we have a bunch of players with good grades in SPTE, HRTM, Sociology etc
Of course there are exceptions on every team (Andrew Luck an example)
But all these schools have athletic majors. (Even Stanford)

The point of my post is...of all the things the 'classless courier' could have written about the bowl game, the season, ect... THIS is what they chose to put on the front page of their newspaper at this time.....why?

And to not put an author other than 'staff report' makes it even more pissy.....someone hiding behind their computer screen...in the dark.

Honestly I take all that academic stuff with a grain of salt.
We all know what happens.
The current staff is just on top of it more in getting them to show up to class etc.

People like to make fun of Spiller's achievements but its in sociology, a toddler can do what he did.

Cool we have a bunch of players with good grades in SPTE, HRTM, Sociology etc
Of course there are exceptions on every team (Andrew Luck an example)
But all these schools have athletic majors. (Even Stanford)

Of course they do. However, not all athletes at these schools do as well as we have in those athletic majors.

Note that in the academic performances that it isn't just football players raising the bar in academics at USC. I think it's a good reflection of the overall progress and success we've had under Spurrier and current administration so don't be so quick to dismiss it.